WI: Byzantines create/gain access to gunpowder?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date
It depends on the timing.

However grenades on the other hand. Sling-staff grenadiers vs. Arab light cavalry and Turkish horse archers will end very badly for the latter. But they will likely lack the punch to beat lamellar armor, so they'll need to be supported by conventional troops to counter the enemy heavies, but that's not a big deal. And the grenadiers are a perfect counter to the regular ghazi raiders that are the Empire's main security problem at the time.

m...

I dont care how well your horse is armoured, a grenade blowing up underneath it is going to do serious damage.

Even if you armour the belly, the legs will be vulnerable. And if you armour the legs well enough, the horse cant move, negating the whole purpose of a horse....
 

Deleted member 67076

Err.. i doubt it highly, or at least anything wed call grenades. Gunpowder hadn't come west yet.

Edit. It hadn't been invented in China yet.

So, yes, a huge change.
You're right. Did some research and it was Greek fire in grenades, not gunpowder grenades.
 

katchen

Banned
Maybe the reason the Byzantines never developed gunpowder was that they put their energy into refining naptha (Greek fire ) weapons while the Mongols brought the idea of gunpowder t(powdered incendiary and explosive mix) to the rest of Europe. This was simply because the Greeks HAD petroleum and the rest of Europe? Not so much. By the way, the Byzantine's petroleum source is still there and still significant-- in and off Albania.
 
I think not only the timing, but the aggressiveness with which they exploit gunpowder will matter.

I think most people are right in zeroing in on artillery as having more immediate value - either to defend a position or fortification, or to take one in a siege. One thinks of Henry V's use of cannon in his campaign in northern France in 1415-1421.

Would they also experiment with using them on ships at sea? That might help accelerate the restoration of Byzantine sea dominance in the Eastern Mediterranean, at least.

In the hands of a great leader, like Basil II, there are some offensive possibilities. But mainly I see gunpowder as helping the Byzantines defend what they already have better.
 

Deleted member 67076

Sea cannons, its likely they would. That would be an interesting mix, cannons and Greek fire.
 
If we want to be incredibly simplistic, we can look at firearms as a general plus for infantry and ships, and a general minus for cavalry and fortifications, relatively speaking. To be sure, both cavalry and fortification benefit in and of themselves from the introduction of firearms, but the forces that would be used against them benefit more.

With this simplistic view, we can consider the development of firearms to be something of a wash for the Byzantines on land, at least on the eastern frontier. The Arab empires of the time hardly seem like the sort to not catch on to something so useful, and black powder would be inherently more difficult to keep a secret than Greek Fire.

On the other hand, firearms would be much more effective against the less sedentary enemies they faced to their north. Firearms are quite useful against cavalry and, even more importantly, nomadic peoples are generally not all that good at siege warfare, negating significantly the disadvantage to fortifications that gunpowder weaponry brings about, at least on that front. I would expect the Avars, Bulgars, Pechenegs, and/or Cumans to do much less well against the Empire in this situation (depending on when the technology is developed). Having a stronger hand against the nomads could conceivably enable the Empire to maintain a more aggressive policy against the Arabs.

On the other (third?) hand, gunpowder does tend to change the dynamics of the Nomad vs. Farmer conflict throughout history so much that the expansion of the Nomads tends to be stopped pretty well in its tracts, historically, once firearms became widespread (they maximize all the military advantages of sedentary societies and virtually eliminate the advantages of non-sedentary societies). What might very well happen is that, confronted with a gunpowder-armed Byzantine Empire, whatever tribe is attempting to muscle in on them could settle down (possibly even with Byzantine help, as a buffer state to further threats) and prove to be a threat in the long run as they develop their own weaponry.

Lastly (forget any 'hand expressions' now), while it would initially seem that gunpowder would be a boon to the Byzantine navy, its ease of dissemination to other (hostile) powers would likely eliminate the advantage of Greek Fire. Now, I don't know the ranges of early ship cannons, nor do I know the range of Greek Fire syphons, but I have to imagine that cannons, even in their early days had an advantage there (an advantage that would only continue to grow).
 
The main disadvantage of cannons vs. Greek fire is that artillery is a terribly ineffective way of sinking ships, whereas fire vs. wooden ships is frightenignly lethal.

Add in the ability to close to as close range as desired (even under "point blank") with oars, and it might not be that dire - although it is there.
 
What would be the effect if Romans successfully fend off the siege of Nicomedia? Prusa and Nicaea were inland, so the Turks could blockade them and ambush relief efforts, but Nicomedia was a seaport that could be relieved and supplied by sea.
 

katchen

Banned
If you already have Greek fire, how difficult is it to come up with the idea of creating an aeresol WITHIN a contained firing chamber and touching off that aeresol with a match through a touch hole or safer yet, a mechanical flint and steel spark to propel an artillery shell, maybe a cannonball , or maybe a small charge with more fused Greek Fire at a ship. The problem with gunpowder is that the supply of saltpeter is not unlimited.

And by the way, I believeyou can make an even more powerful bomb or grenado with greek fire mixed with saltpeter (potassium nitrate) than you can with black powder. Same principle as ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, but not quite as powerful as ANFO. If you've got the greek fire, which the Byzantines do, and are willing to experiment with it. At the very least, you might be able to make some powerful land mines to prepare a battlefield for when the enemy marches or rides over it.
 
On the other hand, firearms would be much more effective against the less sedentary enemies they faced to their north. Firearms are quite useful against cavalry and, even more importantly, nomadic peoples are generally not all that good at siege warfare, negating significantly the disadvantage to fortifications that gunpowder weaponry brings about, at least on that front. I would expect the Avars, Bulgars, Pechenegs, and/or Cumans to do much less well against the Empire in this situation (depending on when the technology is developed). Having a stronger hand against the nomads could conceivably enable the Empire to maintain a more aggressive policy against the Arabs.

On the other (third?) hand, gunpowder does tend to change the dynamics of the Nomad vs. Farmer conflict throughout history so much that the expansion of the Nomads tends to be stopped pretty well in its tracts, historically, once firearms became widespread (they maximize all the military advantages of sedentary societies and virtually eliminate the advantages of non-sedentary societies). What might very well happen is that, confronted with a gunpowder-armed Byzantine Empire, whatever tribe is attempting to muscle in on them could settle down (possibly even with Byzantine help, as a buffer state to further threats) and prove to be a threat in the long run as they develop their own weaponry.

Excellent points.

Gunpowder may be of most use in Balkans and the Crimea.
 
The main disadvantage of cannons vs. Greek fire is that artillery is a terribly ineffective way of sinking ships, whereas fire vs. wooden ships is frightenignly lethal.

Add in the ability to close to as close range as desired (even under "point blank") with oars, and it might not be that dire - although it is there.

To be sure, Greek fire certainly does have its advantages. My point regarding Greek Fire versus Cannons is that the Empire will have a very difficult time controlling the secret of gunpowder, thus leading to their opponents in sea battles having cannons, mitigating some of the advantages of Greek Fire.

In other words, whereas a naval battle between the Byzantines and Arabs historically would be a battle of napalm versus arrows, this would make it napalm and cannon versus cannons (to use some artistic license). There's less of a gap between the effectiveness there.
 
My guess is that early gunpowder is bad for the Byzantines. The walls of Constantinople were effectively impregnable before the invention of cannon. If the Byzantines develop cannon, the tech will leak out to their enemies soon enough, destroying their trump card fortification advantage.
 

Deleted member 67076

My guess is that early gunpowder is bad for the Byzantines. The walls of Constantinople were effectively impregnable before the invention of cannon. If the Byzantines develop cannon, the tech will leak out to their enemies soon enough, destroying their trump card fortification advantage.
If they develop it during a bad time. However, that assumes that after they develop it there will soon be a siege of Constantinople.

I'm not saying it'll be their trump card, but gunpowder is usually a huge boon for nations, especially for those fighting cavalry
 
To be sure, Greek fire certainly does have its advantages. My point regarding Greek Fire versus Cannons is that the Empire will have a very difficult time controlling the secret of gunpowder, thus leading to their opponents in sea battles having cannons, mitigating some of the advantages of Greek Fire.

In other words, whereas a naval battle between the Byzantines and Arabs historically would be a battle of napalm versus arrows, this would make it napalm and cannon versus cannons (to use some artistic license). There's less of a gap between the effectiveness there.

True, but the issues of cannon at sea mean that the Byzantines having napalm (in the conditions Greek Fire was useful) might still be the war winner tactically.
 

Deleted member 67076

How long would it take for the Byzantines to lose their monopoly on gunpowder?
 
On the other (third?) hand, gunpowder does tend to change the dynamics of the Nomad vs. Farmer conflict throughout history so much that the expansion of the Nomads tends to be stopped pretty well in its tracts, historically, once firearms became widespread (they maximize all the military advantages of sedentary societies and virtually eliminate the advantages of non-sedentary societies).

Could you elaborate on this please?
 

Deleted member 67076

Not very long, although the issue of the precise mix of ingredients to make good gunpowder being harder to copy will delay it.
But do you estimate it will be less than a century?
 
Most likely less than 50 years I imagine.

Why? I have two reasons to think that It would be a longer peeriod of time before the secret spread.

1. China did pretty good at keeping the secret formula to gunpowder a state secret. In OTL Korea wasn't able to domestically produce gunpowder until Choe Museon was able to obtain the recipe even though China had been using fire arrows tipped with explosives since the late tenth century.

2. The Eastern Roman Empire was pretty darn good at keeping their formula for Greek Fire a secret.
 
Top